Previous Folio /
Sanhedrin Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin |
|||||||
|
then with respect to damages, wherein unwitting damage is treated as deliberate, and an accident as intention,1 surely he is liable for confining [the animal].
'R. Aha b. Rab ruled that he is not liable.' Said R. Mesharshia: Why does my grandfather2 rule him not liable? — Because of the verse, [Or in enmity he smite him with his hand, that he die:] He that smote him shall surely be put to death: for he is a murderer:3 only a murderer has the law made liable for confining, but not one who causes damage thereby. Raba said: If one bound his neighbour and he died of starvation, he is not liable to execution. Raba also said: If he bound him in the sun, and he died, or in a place of intense cold and he died, he is liable; but if the sun was yet to appear, or the cold to make itself felt, he is not.4 Raba also said: If he bound him before a lion, he is not liable:5 before mosquitoes, [who stung him to death] he is. R. Ashi said: Even before mosquitoes, he is not liable, because these go and others come.6 It has been stated: If one overturned a vat upon a man [who then died of suffocation], or broke open a ceiling above him,7 — Raba and R. Zera [differ]: One ruled that he is liable, the other that he is not. It can be proved that it was Raba who ruled that he is not liable, for he said: If one bound his neighbour and he dies of starvation, he is not liable.8 On the contrary. it can be |
||||||
|
shewn that R. Zera ruled that he is not liable. For R. Zera said: If one led his neighbour in to an alabaster chamber9 and lit a candle therein, so that he died [of the fumes]. he is liable. Now, the reason is only that he lit a candle that he is liable;10 but had he not lit a candle [and the prisoner died of the natural heat and lack of air], he would be exempt!11 — I will tell you: In that case, without a candle, the heat would not have commenced [its effects]
Sanhedrin 77bimmediately [he placed him therein];1 but in this case [of placing the upturned vat over him] the heat commences immediately.(Mnemonic: Ladder, shield, balsam, in a wall.) Raba said: If one thrust his neighbour into a pit, in which there was a ladder [so that he could have climbed out], and then another came and removed it, or even if himself hastened to remove it, he is not liable [for the victim's death], because when he threw him in he could have climbed out. Raba also said: If one shot an arrow at his neighbour, who was holding a shield, but another came and snatched it away, or even if he himself [the thrower] hastened to do so, he is not liable, because when he shot the arrow its force was spent.2 Raba also said: If one shot an arrow at his neighbour. who had balsam in his hand [wherewith he could have healed the wound], but another dashed it out of his hand, or even if he himself [the thrower] did so, he is not liable, because when he did it he could have been healed. R. Ashi said: Therefore this holds good even if there was balsam in the market.3 R. Aha the son of Raba asked R. Ashi: What if he came across the balsam by chance?4 — He replied: Behold, he has left Beth din a free man.5 Raba also said: If one threw a stone at a wall, which rebounded and killed his neighbour,6 he is liable. And a Tanna teaches [in support of this]: If murder is committed by a man playing, for example. with a ball,7 if intentional, the thrower is executed; if unintentional, he is sentenced to the refuge cities.8 'If unintentional, he is sentenced to the refuge cities:' but is that not obvious? — It is necessary to teach that if intentional, he is executed, [the second half being added to complete it]; for I might say, this is a case of 'a doubtful warning', for who knows that it will rebound?9 We are therefore taught otherwise. R. Tahlifa of the West10 recited before R. Abbahu [the following]: If [unintentional] murder is committed by a man playing, for example, with a ball, if [the victim] was within four cubits [of the wall]. the thrower is exempt; if beyond four cubits, he is liable [to exile]. Rabina objected to R. Ashi: How is this? If he desired it [to rebound], he should be liable even for a short distance;11 whilst if not, he should be liable even for a greater distance? — He replied: The greater the rebound, the more is the average player pleased.12 Are we to say that [a murder] so committed is regarded as by his direct action?13 But the following contradicts it: If one was sanctifying [the water], and the ashes14 fell upon his hand or upon |
||||||
|
the side of the utensil, whence it fell into the trough, it is unfit?15 — The reference here is to a dripping down.16
Come and hear! If an [unclean] needle was lying upon a shard, and the [purifying] water was sprinkled thereon, but it is doubtful whether upon the needle or upon the shard, and then it spurted [miza] upon the needle, the sprinkling is invalid.17 — R. Hinena b. R. Judah said in Rab's name: We have learnt, It was found [maza].18 R. Papa said: If one bound his neighbour and then caused a column of water to inundate him, it is as his arrows, and he is liable [for his death]. But that is only if [he was drowned] by his direct agency; but if through his indirect agency,19 he is merely regarded as a subsidiary cause.20 R. Papa also said: If one threw a stone upwards, and it returned |
||||||
|
in a slanting direction and killed a man, he is liable. Mar son of R. Ashi asked R. Papa. Why so? Because it is by his agency! But if so it should go upwards;21
- To Next Folio -
|
||||||